United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 04-2174

KHEANG HONG LONG,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO GONZALES, 

Attorney General of the United States,

Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER

OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Lynch and Howard, Circuit Judges.

Thomas Stylianos, Jr. on brief for petitioner. 

Jeffrey D. Martino, Attorney, Office of Immigration

Litigation, Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil

Division, and Linda S. Wernery, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office

of Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondents.

September 6, 2005
Alberto Gonzales was sworn in as Attorney General of the 1

United States on February 3, 2005. We have substituted him for

John Ashcroft, previous holder of that office, as the lead

respondent. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

 Long also asked for withholding of removal and protection 2

under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ denied relief on both

these grounds. Long did not appeal these denials, and therefore

they are not at issue in this case.

-2-

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. The petitioner, Kheang Hong Long,

a native and citizen of Cambodia, seeks review of the denial of his

application for asylum. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found that Long

was not credible, and that he failed to establish past persecution

or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board of

Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed and adopted the IJ's decision.

We affirm the BIA and deny the petition for review.1

I.

Long entered the United States as a visitor for pleasure

on February 16, 2001. Long timely filed an application for asylum,

claiming he had been a victim of past persecution and had a wellfounded fear of future persecution because of his activities with

the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP), an opposition party to the ruling

Cambodian People's Party (CPP). In his application for asylum,2

Long recounted a number of events of persecution. Long wrote that

on March 30, 1997, he was injured by a hand grenade while attending

a protest against the Cambodian government. In July of the same

year, Long stated, he left Cambodia for Thailand after the

Cambodian government attacked opposition groups during an attempted
-3-

coup d'etat. He returned to Cambodia five months later. Long

claimed that he was then arrested by the CPP on December 31, 2000,

while recruiting new members to the SRP and was placed in jail for

10 days, where he was beaten and interrogated. According to Long,

upon his release his tormentors warned him that he would be killed

if he continued to support the SRP. He also stated that he had

owned a restaurant in Cambodia but that, at some unspecified time,

the CPP "forced [him] to close [it] because of persecution and

intimidation." Long also stated that his wife and two children had

"gone to stay with [his wife's] sister" and that they had to "stay

out of the public eye for fear of being recognized by the

government."

On January 2, 2002, Long was placed under oath and

interviewed, through a translator, by an asylum officer (AO). At

this interview Long recounted many of the details above, including

the fact that he joined the SRP after high school in 1993. After

this interview, the AO denied Long's asylum application and

referred the case to an IJ for a merits hearing. In the assessment

to refer memo, the AO noted a number of inconsistencies in Long's

testimony. Long could not remember significant details about the

SRP, such as whether Sam Rainsy had formed his own party at the

time Long joined it, or the original name of the party. Long also

could not remember when authorities threatened to burn down his

restaurant. He first stated that government authorities threatened
 The functions of the INS were subsequently subsumed in the 3

Department of Homeland Security. 

-4-

to burn down his restaurant on January 10, 2001 and then stated

that it was in February of 2001. When asked to explain, Long

stated that they in fact came twice, and then stated he was not

sure because he was confused. Finally, Long was unable to remember

any details about his imprisonment other than the beatings. The

asylum officer concluded that Long "was unable to provide a

reasonable explanation for this lack of detail and inconsistencies

which are material because they concern his claimed political

activities and abuse by the authorities."

The Immigration and Naturalization Service began removal 3

proceedings against Long on January 9, 2002. During a merits

hearing before an IJ, the assessment to refer memo was introduced

into evidence by the government, without objection from Long's

attorney. Long stated that he had run his restaurant in Cambodia

until December of 2000. However, the passport Long used to come to

the United States, which he obtained in November of 2000, listed

his occupation as "salesman." When asked to explain what exactly

he sold, Long said "I sell everything that's in restaurant which is

the orange juice and coke and the beers and the spring waters and

food and noodles." Later, when questioned by the judge about the

present location of his wife and children, Long reiterated that his

wife and children were "now liv[ing] in Phnom Penh with my . . .
-5-

sister-in-law," and provided their address. The government

attorney then questioned Long: 

Q: Isn't that your address that you just said for

your wife and children . . . on your passport,

sir, issued in 2000? 

A: Yes.

Q: So your wife and children are still living in your

house in Phnom Penh, correct? It's a yes or no

question.

A: Before that . . . escaping from place to place and

living house to house and because they don't have

the money to rent, so finally she end up came back

to old house and this is what happened. 

Q: So, yes, she lives in the same house you lived in

when you left Cambodia now, right?

A: Yes.

Later, when Long offered his SRP membership card into evidence, he

stated, "I received the cards [sic] in 1998 when I joined the

party." But later when asked more specifically when he joined the

SRP, Long stated "I joined the Sam Rainsy party since I was in

school back in 1995." When asked to explain the inconsistency,

Long once again resorted to evasive maneuvers: "The card issued to

me in 1998, . . . but I was an active member of Sam Rainsy party

since 1995 when I was in school." These responses were all

inconsistent with Long's statement to the asylum officer that he

had been a member of the SRP since 1993. 

The IJ denied Long's application for asylum in an oral

decision on May 8, 2003, finding that Long was not credible and
-6-

therefore had not made a showing of past persecution or a wellfounded fear of future persecution. First, the IJ cited the

discrepancies found by the AO, as detailed in the assessment to

refer. Second, the IJ pointed to the discrepancy between Long's

passport, issued in November of 2000, which lists his occupation as

"salesman," and Long's testimony that he runs a restaurant. Third,

the IJ pointed to Long's admitted lies in his visa application as

to whether his restaurant was still open and his status as a

visitor for pleasure. Finally, the IJ noted that Long had provided

no evidence corroborating the story of his arrest by the CPP. Long

appealed to the BIA, which adopted and affirmed the IJ's decision,

making it the final agency determination for the purposes of

appellate review. See Albathani v. INS, 318 F.3d 365, 373 (1st

Cir. 2003). Long then petitioned this court for review solely as

to the asylum claim.

II.

This case turns on the adverse credibility decision by

the IJ. We review factual findings and credibility determinations

under the deferential substantial evidence standard. INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Singh v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d

156, 159 (1st Cir. 2005). The IJ's determination must stand

"unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude

to the contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Rodriguez-Ramirez

v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 120, 123 (1st Cir. 2005). The deference to
 In Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1089-90 (9th Cir. 4

2005), the court held that an IJ's reliance on an assessment to

refer is inappropriate under certain circumstances. This case does

not present the same issue since the IJ here provided a number of

valid reasons besides the discrepancies noted in the assessment to

refer. 

-7-

the IJ is not unlimited, however. The IJ must provide specific

reasons for its determination that, in turn, are supported by the

evidence. See Akinwande v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 517, 522 (1st Cir.

2004). As detailed above, the IJ did precisely this.

Long makes two arguments in response. First, Long faults

the IJ's reliance on the fact that he had lied on his visa

application, and cites Matter of Pula, 19 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA

1987) in support. However, Long's "circumvention of orderly

refugee procedures" was not the "the sole or even primary focus of

the IJ," Albathani, 318 F.3d at 374 n.5, and therefore Long's

argument is unavailing. Second, Long argues that the IJ erred

because he did not make "independent findings" but "merely

concur[red]" with the asylum officer's assessment to refer. This

argument also fails. In addition to the AO's report, the IJ

provided a number of specific, independent reasons supporting his

decision. Furthermore, even a cursory glance through the facts 4

recounted above reveals a number of serious discrepancies among

Long's statements in his asylum application, to the asylum officer,

and before the IJ. Thus, based on this record, there was

substantial evidence supporting the IJ's determination that Long
-8-

was not credible, and we cannot say a contrary conclusion is

compelled.

The petition for review is denied.